After all, Iran actually has nukes, and has expressed her desire to use them on another country. Or should have attacked the Saudis, who sent 15 of the 19 terrorists on 9/11? Or should we have stayed in Afghanistan and concentrated on bin Laden?
2007-02-20 09:16:30 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Correction: Iran does not have nukes YET. She is working hard to build nukes and has expressed her desire to use them.
2007-02-20 09:54:50 · update #1
No. In hind sight we should have continued to allocate all resources to pursue those who killed 3000 Americans on 9/11. THis pursuit would not have led to Iraq or Iran. Instead we would be heavy in Afghanistan, parts of Pakistan and quite possibly Saudi Arabia.
2007-02-20 09:24:53 · answer #1 · answered by the man 1 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes, if we were going to attack someone from the Middle Eeast, if should have damn well been Iran--those bastards captured our Americans in 79 and held them for a long time. I think Jimmy Carter should have showed them a lesson and commanded an Air Strike. But yes, Iraq was not a threat to us. Under the containment policy under Clinton, Saddams forces were graduallly being depleted. We had jets flying all over Iraq just keeping an eye on him. The policy was expensive but at least we would not be in the trouble we are in now. I don't like Iran--i like the people but not the government--they are constantly spitting threats about wiping our Isreal and the U.S. We need to teach them a lesson. If we don't, then Isreal will surtainly do it for us.
2007-02-20 11:41:32 · answer #2 · answered by General Vic 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We should have "stayed the course" with the original Course
the Bin Laden thing would have been a done deal !!
And, if any action had been "needed" in Iraq
we should have killed Hussein and been done with THAT
Iran is just another excuse to build a standing presence within
the region that the military-industrial complex has been wanting for years---and for all the talk about Iran and its nuke WANTS-- even if they had one-- they know it would be literal suicide to use it--- one use and the country would turn into glass !! They are not completely supid !!!
2007-02-20 09:32:13 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We should not have attacked either country. You don't know that Iran has nuclear weapons, in fact the consensus is that they don't have them yet.
Although Bin Laden is not in Afghanistan the Taliban are & the people want them out. The government of Afghanistan has invited us in to help them get the Taliban out.
Although Saudia Arabia is really not our friend, they act like it but Americans are not safe in that country. They are treating our government with one voice & letting their people speak with another. We allow this because we need their oil & they know it.
2007-02-20 09:34:07 · answer #4 · answered by geegee 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you have by no potential performed danger in the previous, have ya??? We had squaddies in Afghanistan and Kuwait. we are allies with Saudi Arabia.. So we attacked Saddams regime and took him out of means, and are at present struggling with terrorists there... now we've squaddies on the two factors of Iran (Afghanistan and Iraq). we are additionally allies with Pakistan... So If Iran starts off something, they're already surrounded... they have nowhere to bypass different than Turkmenistan or the Gulf... however the US army would be blocking off the Gulf... Victory is Ours.....
2016-10-02 11:20:59 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Iran has expressed the desire to produce a nuclear electric plant, and enriched uranium to run it . which is allowed under international nuclear safety treaties that the U.S. congress ratified . bush is just looking for any feeble excuse to invade another oil producing country . we should go after OBL , the alleged mastermind of 9-11 .
2007-02-20 09:41:37 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, we should have attacked Iran, in hindsight, I even believe if we did, that Saddam would have actually have helped us, because he hated the Iranians so much. He could have probably showed us some intelligence on Iran, and let us station troops in Iraq int he past. If he was still in power, he would have already attacked Iran, because of he feud between the two. He would have probably forgot about the Gulf War.
2007-02-20 09:21:32 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
The U.S. and Russia have 96% of the worlds nukes, Iran is a below average country, why doesn't anyone invade us?
2007-02-20 09:20:27 · answer #8 · answered by Evil Man 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
what the hell. so what? just because 15 of the terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, you think the US should invade that country? How many people does it have? So what about the filipino or japanese girls who get raped by US soldiers stationed at the army bases in Asia. should those countries attack the US?
2007-02-20 10:14:21 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Iran doesn't have nukes.. yet. They are working on them though.
Both countries need/needed to be dealt with.
2007-02-20 09:19:46 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋